PURPOSE:

The objective was to determine the accuracy of 3D-printed dental models subjected to different storage conditions using six different material and printer combinations. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Three completely dentate models were designed using dental CAD software (3Shape Dental System). A horseshoe-shaped solid base with a posterior horizontal bar was used. The models were printed in a horizontal direction against the building platform without support. The models were printed using six printers with the corresponding recommended resin

material:

Carbon M2 (DPR10), HeyGears A2D4K (Model HP UV2.0), Stratasys J5 (MED610), Stratasys Origin One (DM200), Envision One (E-Model LightDLP), and Asiga Pro4K (VeriModel) with a standard layer thickness of 50 µm. All printed models underwent scanning using a laboratory scanner (Sirona inEOS X5) after printing. Subsequently, the models were randomly assigned into three groups of storage conditions, LT cold environment (4 ± 1°C), HT hot and dry environment (50 ± 2°C), and RT room temperature (25 ± 2°C) serving as the control. Each group was kept under the designated condition and was scanned at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 weeks. The total number of models (N) was 72, with 6 printers producing 12 models per printer for 3 storage conditions, resulting in 4 models for each storage condition and each printer. The generated STL files were imported into a 3D inspection software for comparison with the original STL files. In-tolerance percentage, the deviation RMS, trueness, and precision were obtained and analyzed with least square mean linear regression using JMP Pro 15 to identify the significant effects (α = 0.05).

RESULTS:

The in-tolerance percentage as-printed was significantly different among different printers. Significant dimension deviations were observed after the first week of storage at HT and with subsequent weeks of storage. RT and LT did not show significant dimensional changes. Models printed with Carbon M2 showed the highest in-tolerance percentages compared to the other printers.

CONCLUSIONS:

The model deviations were affected by storage conditions and the printer used, with high-temperature storage showed least stability compared to low and room temperatures. No significant difference was observed between low and room temperature storage conditions. The Carbon M2 printer showed the highest accuracy among all printers tested. The region had a significant effect on the deviation measured, with the abutment body showing the least deviation. Among the 3D printers evaluated, A2D4K by HeyGears and Carbon M2 printers demonstrated the highest accuracy in terms of both precision and trueness.